♪ emily: this is the "best of bloomberg technology" where we bring you all of our top interviews from this week in tech. coming up, the former chairman of the fcc, tom wheeler, slams the plan to roll back net neutrality. ler joins us to discuss what he calls a shameful sellout. plus, another huge setback for uber, the company concealed a hack of 57 million accounts, then paid the hackers to delete it and keep it quiet. and meg whitman's departure.

we discussed her tenure and the tough job that awaits her replacement. the trump administration took a big step towards voiding obama era net neutrality regulations. the current sec chairman announced tuesday he plans to hold a vote on overturning the protections. the regulations are intended to prevent broadband providers from favoring their business partners' offerings or their own video and other content. >> the fcc would require that all internet service providers be transparent about their business practices if they are blocking or throttling content. they have to disclose that, and we make clear that the federal trade commission would have authority to police broadband providers if they are behaving in an anti-competitive way. through those two rules, we would be able to protect consumers going forward and

promote investment in networks that are necessary to promote digital opportunity. emily: we caught up with a man who led the fcc during the obama administration when those protections were instituted, tom wheeler. mr. wheeler: transparency is the solution, so all that is necessary to do something evil is to tell you that i'm about to do something evil. that does not make any sense. then what do you do once you have that information? 2/3 of the households in america have no other choice as to where they are going to get their internet, so this is -- to go out and claim that somehow this is some kind of consumer protection is a fraudulent representation. emily: they say their proposal is more fair, more proconsumer. what makes you think it is the opposite? mr. wheeler: in the name of consumer protection, they are not going to protect consumers. commissioner mcsweeney this

afternoon tweeted that even if they turn it over to the ftc, they do not have any authority. they are just running away from their responsibilities. emily: the big concern is how this impacts the haves and have-nots, the folks who could increase future innovation, be responsible for future innovation. how would this impact the haves of the moment, googles, facebooks, netflix? mr. wheeler: i think the big thing is how it affects everybody and their ability to get on the internet and for consumers to reach providers and providers to reach consumers. what we're seeing here is the cable-ization of the internet. if you like your cable company in the way they choose which

channels you can see and the way they continue to increase your prices, you will love what happens under this repeal because suddenly, the people making the rules are the networks, and the consumers cannot survive without the networks, and the service providers cannot survive without the networks. emily: how can we hold isp's accountable? mr. wheeler: that is what we did in our open internet rule. no blocking, no throttling, no paid prioritization. you have to provide information to the consumer, and we will put a referee on the field to look at what your continued actions are as technology evolves and throw the flag if necessary. what the trump fcc is doing is just turning its back and

walking away and giving the network companies everything that they have asked for. emily: this is unfolding against very interesting political backdrops. we mentioned earlier what is going on with at&t costs proposed merger, with time warner, the doj now suing at&t. how much of this is politically motivated? mr. wheeler: i cannot answer that question. i do find it shocking that the trump fcc from day one has gone right down the line for what the big companies want when they are supposed to be representing consumers, not the companies, and the fcc continually turns their back on their congressional mandate to protect consumers. emily: by all accounts, it appears this will happen in

december. for you, what is it like to watch your work be undone? mr. wheeler: [chuckles] i have had better thanksgivings. no, i think the answer there is that this is a long process. yes, it appears as though they have the votes to overturn it in december. then it will be up to the court. the decision we made twice went through the court and was twice affirmed by the court, and i hope that the court will look at this and say, "hey, wait a minute -- this has been in effect for two and a half years, and there have not been bad things that resulted. why are they turning around and going the other direction?" emily: that was the former fcc chairman, tom wheeler.

let's get the other side, the former republican fcc commissioner who served under both presidents bush and obama and joined us right after wheeler in support of a rollback. mr. mcdowell: we are going back to where things were in 2015 and what is being put back into place is clinton-gore administration policy. the internet ecosphere, i think we can all agree, was exploding beautifully before 2015, before these old 1934 rules under the 1934 communications act was put on broadband internet access. you have section two of the clayton act, section seven of the clayton act, actually. you have a lot of protections. the terms of service with each broadband internet service provider, which is a contract with consumers -- if they were to discriminate in a way that harms consumers, there would be an avalanche of lawsuits, for instance. there are so many protections

that were already in place in 2015 before the single title two was imposed into the internet ecosphere, so it is actually going to be just fine. the sky is not falling. there is not going to be some internet dystopia coming. it's going to be the same place -- better place, actually, as we look to invest $300 billion in new mobile technology that we will need over the next decade, to have america continue to lead the world in wireless and really wire up the internet of things. it's going to be a great decade coming up. emily: we just got a question from a viewer who asks quite plainly how this actually helps consumers. mr. mcdowell: since 2015, we have seen a stutter step in investment in broadband networks. a number of studies and market analyses suggest that capex has

been curtailed in this space because as you had in a previous segment, the sword of damocles of rate regulation was swinging over isp's, so title two was created for the ma bell monopoly. the fcc with this bottleneck all of a sudden for innovation and experimentation in the marketplace. keep in mind, by the way, that over 90% of consumers have a choice of 4 mobile broadband providers. speeds are much faster than dsl or cable modem speeds were, and they will be 100 times faster after we wirelessly connect with 5g the internet of things, so it's going to be a wonderful time. emily: how do we hold isp's accountable when this is mostly honor-system-based? mr. mcdowell: there are many laws in effect here. what prevented them prior to 2015 from behaving in an anti-competitive way that harms consumers?

the section five federal trade commission act, the clayton act, but also economic incentives. you have a competitive marketplace for broadband, and it is primarily mobile broadband. we see cord cutting and cord shaving. you have market pressure, and you had other laws already on the books prior to 2015 that protected consumers, protected entrepreneurs, protected investors, and it gave us this great internet ecosphere that we enjoy today, so it is a myth. emily: we have also been talking about the doj suing at&t over its attempt to acquire time warner. with tom wheeler, we talked about how much of all of these issues are politically motivated. i'm curious for your thoughts on that.

mr. mcdowell: i worked on a lot of these deals, and we worked closely with the department of justice and the federal trade commission on these deals. what we are seeing is a reinvention of antitrust law or an attempt to do so with this complaint. there is a reason the government has not challenged a vertical deal where a distributor is buying a supplier in nearly half a century. that is because they tend to fail or there is no competitive harm. right now, the jurisprudence, the case law is really stacked against the government. the government has the burden of proof here, and we are going to see an interesting case.

get the popcorn out because there are two have companies in america that know the most about antitrust laws. exxon, the old standard oil, and ma bell, at&t. at&t was willing to go to court for a horizontal merger where they were buying a competitor. they are more than willing to go to court and win. the government has a huge burden to overcome and would really be creating a new precedent as they try to argue in court. so get the popcorn out. it will be an interesting couple of months. emily: that was former fcc commissioner robert mcdowell. coming up, uber's new ceo finds himself an apology mode again. this is bloomberg. ♪ ♪ emily: this week, we learned

♪ emily: this week, we learned uber covered up a massive hack attack affecting 57 million accounts. in 2016, hackers stole the data of 50 million riders and 7 million drivers. the company kept the breach concealed for a year. this week, the company ousted joe sullivan, the chief executive security officer, and another executive for their roles in keeping the hack under wraps. rather than report the breach, uber paid the hackers to delete the information. eric: more than a year ago, uber heard from the attackers they found a way to get names, telephone numbers, that sort of information on 50 million riders and 7 million drivers. most importantly, drivers license numbers for 600,000

drivers. that is information that uber was required to disclose and did not. more than a year later with a new ceo, the company is deciding to come forward and say that they should have disclosed this information, and here is what happened. emily: he's telling you this should have happened, he will not make excuses, and they are changing the way they do business. uber has been negotiating with regulators for a long time. what makes them think they could get away with something like this? eric: while they were talking to the federal trade commission and just after negotiations with the new york attorney general, they faced the question of what to do about this hacking. it's hard to imagine this engenders any sort of trust with regulators. you already saw in the instance

in london where regulators revoked their license that part of the issue was a just did not trust uber and that the company had not really represented very clearly what has gone on. this is another sign that uber is willing to go to great lengths to hide information that it believes it was required to report to regulators. that will give cities, states, and national governments all over the world serious pause. emily: how can we be sure this information did not get into anyone else's hands and that the hackers did delete this information? eric: right. uber's belief is they did pay the $100,000. they had evidence that the files were actually deleted. we do not know who the hackers were, but they refer to them as these two individuals. right now, there is a belief that that information is not out there in the public, and uber is

offering data protection for the drivers affected by the most serious information breach. emily: what did the former ceo know and when did he know it? eric: always a good question. a lot of this falls to their chief security officer. he was ousted. he knew the company had been negotiating with the attorney general's office in new york and the ftc. there are questions about how much he knew, the legal reasoning and legal obligations behind the decision, but he certainly knew about the hack and the scrutiny uber faced. emily: what kind of penalty could uber face -- some sort of consequences from regulators, could they be hit with a lawsuit in fact? eric: anything is possible. as we reported before, uber faces ongoing criminal probes that have touched at least five

different areas. this is a company that over time regulators and law enforcement officials are looking at, and there are dozens of lawsuits against uber, so it would not be surprising that something like that could happen, but i think we have to wait and see what the actual consequence is, but you have to imagine a some sort of monitor or attempt to make sure that uber is doing what it says is doing is something regulators or law enforcement will be thinking about after these revelations. emily: i know it may be hard to keep track of all the open investigations, but what do we know about the status of those and if we are likely to see any kind of penalty? eric: we have not heard a lot since my big story last month saying that there were these five investigations. one interesting fact is that joe

sullivan, who has been ousted as part of this incident, was at the center, or at least his organization was at the center of some of those things. you hear about greyball, the software meant to help in some cases drivers evade law enforcement. that was something sullivan's team was responsible for and something investigators have looked at and may still be looking at. there are so many questions and the ceo has to keep playing cleanup, and he knew that was what he was coming into. maybe he did not know quite the extent of it. this one, the data breach, is a -- is just shocking. emily: tesla is spending an average of $8,000 per minute as it ramps up production on its model 3 sedan, which would put the company on track to exhaust its current cash pile by early

august, so the pace is not expected to continue. tesla has said it has ample money to meet its target of producing 5000 model 3's by the end of march. coming up, the doj is hitting at&t hard. details on the lawsuit that could block at&t's $85 billion takeover. ♪

♪ emily: big news for tencent, the tech giant has become the first chinese government to revalue net more than 500 billion dollars. this just three months after it top $400 billion for the first time ever. it joins apple, alphabet, amazon, microsoft, and facebook is the only companies valued at more than $500 billion. we got exclusive access to its workshop and drone testing grounds.

tom mackenzie reports. tom: the drudgery of your daily commute could be near an end if these taxi drone makers get their way. >> we have the permits and our taxi drones will be seen flying in dubai and other places publicly. tom: where do you see the biggest opportunities publicly? >> definitely commercial use and human carrying drones. we're only at the beginning stages of large-scale usage of drones. the passenger drones had just come to the attention of the public and our company has just shifted our attention from technology to the commercial side as we see huge opportunities in the global

market. tom: is the biggest challenge the regulatory market? is that still the number one obstacle you have to get over? >> the civil aviation authority in uae and china have given us the green light for testing. in china, the u.s., and many other places, policy makers have put us in the center, working closely with us every day on regulation. this is already very unusual. tom: is china your prime focus or are you looking overseas as well for sales? >> the overseas market is indeed bigger than the chinese market in terms of purchasing ability. however, we are making our way in china. for example, we signed deals with two local governments and helped them build control centers like this one for them

to use our drones extensively in areas such as urban control and environmental monitoring. i expect passenger drones to bring us much more income next year. we have already secured a $1 billion order from an american company and formed a strategic partnership. the passenger drone will become a star in 2018. tom: you received $52 million in funding. are you still looking for investment? >> regarding 300 million u.s. dollars as we start mass production of our passenger drones at the beginning of next year. we also plan to install fully automated production lines to enlarge production capacity. furthermore, we will sign deals in saudi arabia, singapore, and several european sites where we will need funding to support drone tests. tom: they are also putting their delivery drones through their paces.

if regulators give the start up the green light, it will take off. emily: still ahead, the justice department has filed suit to stop at&t's takeover of time warner, and president trump had this to say about the deal -- >> i'm not going to get involved in litigation, but personally, i always felt that was a deal not good for the country. i think your pricing is going to go up. i think it's not good for the country, but i will not get involved in litigation. emily: more on that story ahead. this is bloomberg. ♪ is this a phone?

or a little internet machine? it makes you wonder: shouldn't we get our phones and internet from the same company? that's why xfinity mobile comes with your internet. you get up to 5 lines of talk and text at no extra cost. so all you pay for is data.

see how much you can save. choose by the gig or unlimited. xfinity mobile. a new kind of network designed to save you money. call, visit, or go to xfinitymobile.com. ♪ i emily: welcome back to the "best of bloomberg technology." i am emily chang. at&t is telling the trump administration we will see you in court. this week, the justice department announced it is suing to block at&t's $85 billion takeover of time warner. at&t c.e.o. randall stephenson says the suit stretches the idea of antitrust law beyond the will breaking point and is vowing not to sell cnn to appease the administration. this deals a major blow to the carrier's bid to create a media and telecommunications empire. our reporter listened in on the monday call and joined us after.

take a listen. they said it is illegal, harmful to consumers. their rationale is it is a vertical merger, but they are saying this concentrates too much power in the hands of one company and gives at&t too much clout to determine and prioritize its own stuff through time warner. so, it is really interesting and an almost unheard of case for the department of justice to come out against what does at least on paper look like a pure vertical merger. emily: in the weeks leading up to him taking over the position at the justice department, it seemed like everything was moving forward. in the last month, things have changed. is this politically motivated? does this have to do with the president's dislike of cnn? cory: there has been some

reporting saying this did come from the staff and not the politically appointed people. the suggestion was this was about market concentration. the lawsuit will try to bring in whatever he can, including what the president has said on twitter and in private, to look at how it may have influenced the deal to throw some mud at this thing, but this is a pretty tough suit. the suggestion is the concentration of power. it is interesting to see from this from this current fcc. >> my take is if this is considered a consolidation of power, how do we think about google, facebook? all of the big tech companies. arguably, there is a lot more power and influence in those companies. if i am them, i am nervous because the regulatory and legal environment suggests they could be going after large companies with influence. emily: do you think this could have a broader ripple effect or

is specific to this deal? >> it will absolutely have a broader ripple effect. i think there is no way this doesn't have a chilling effect on big-ticket m&a. this is a case about what we constitute power to be. you had the traditional idea the power was only in concentrated markets. this is the question of absolute power. if the doj goes through and succeeds, you will see people who would have done mergers similar to this having to think twice. i think you will see people pullback from some of the bigger, potentially more contentious deals, and then the unpredictability of trump and whether there was political interference, we don't know yet. but trump has been vocal he does not like this deal and does not like cnn. guess what? cnn is one of the main assets the department of justice has asked at&t to divest from.

emily: randall stephenson said spinning off cnn is not an option, that they want cnn, but there is an opportunity to negotiate. could that be part of a negotiation? cory: it looks like the negotiation ended a few days ago and the suggestion that cnn might get spun off, they might have worked out before, but now they are going to court. we don't know what was offered and not offered. but it is important to understand how cnn works within the cable empire at time warner. time warner is able to insist if the cable carrier somewhere wants to carry cnn, they will be told you can have cnn if you take tnt, tbs, all our other offerings, so time warner is able to sell many cable networks by having the crown jewel in cnn. it is not a stand-alone business. that is why they have tbs and

tnt on all these other carriages and that is a great source of revenue for time warner. and as a result, you have time warner recognizing they need to keep it part of their business. and at&t wanted to keep that part of time warner. emily: we are getting headlines out of the justice department, i -- a justice department officials saying the lawsuit has nothing to do with president trump or was not influenced by president trump or anyone else in the white house. cory: that does not mean it won't come up in the trial. >> of course they will say that. they have to say that. emily: party line. >> it is absolutely party line. cory: clever. party line, talking about at&t. an oldie but a goodie. >> we have to think about how people consume media and content these days. all that is changing, therefore the rules are changing. that's what we have to think about, the potential implications of what is going on. emily: at&t-time warner merger would pose a level of

competitive harm not seen in decades. ok. this is what a justice department official is saying. what is next? how does this process play out? >> i think they will obviously go to court on this one. it seems very unlikely they will find resolution beforehand. at&t believes they have a winnable case. they believe there has been some level of political interference. they said almost immediately when the justice department came out this afternoon, at&t put out an aggressive statement saying the lawsuit is a radical and inexplicable departure from decades of antitrust precedent. they feel this is the d.o.j. overreaching and they will go to court and hope to win this case. emily: what do you expect the consequences to be if this deal does not go through? >> i like the point, blame the bankers. it is always a good start.

if it doesn't go through, look at fox. you have a number of companies trying to buy assets from fox. there is still a lot of potential acquirers. i think at&t has until april before someone can come in and pick this up, but you could see other suitors try to buy all or part of time warner. i think if they go to court and this thing gets blocked, it does not bode well for people attempting these big, contentious mergers. emily: that was bob o'donnell, ed hammond, and cory johnson. coming up, hpe announces a major executive leadership departure. we will tell you about the next c.e.o. as meg whitman wraps up almost seven years at the helm. this is bloomberg. ♪

♪ emily: on the earnings front, salesforce reported a quarterly profit thanks to an expanded lineup of cloud-based programs. revenue rose 25% in the fiscal third quarter, but forecasts for fourth-quarter profit missed estimates. c.e.o. marc benioff has been looking to new products to offer marketing and e-commerce services and adding machine learning capabilities to attract clients amid heightened competition from microsoft and oracle. major leadership changes at hewlett packard enterprise. c.e.o. meg whitman will step down from role february of next year but will remain on the board. antonio neri will succeed whitman. news of the executive reshuffle was announced at the fourth quarter report. the company reported over $7.5 billion in net revenue, missing estimates. we caught up with cory johnson and executive vice president of research products for idc. cory: look, she took on an apparently impossible job, to

try to right hewlett packard into a bigger and better business and restore it to the glory it had been as the leader in silicon valley. we saw a lot of changes at the company, most notably the split taking hewlett-packard enterprises, the high-growth and andow growth printer p.c. business and spin it off on the other side. she went in as c.e.o. to what was supposed to be a high growing business, but that business continued to shrink and spend billions of dollars on acquisitions, and yet they are still taking write-downs. the restructuring charges in this quarter alone, they spent $10 million a week in restructuring charges. the one-time restructuring charges go back to 2001. that was not all her fault, but she could not find the direction this company to resume growth. the numbers they put out today show some growth on an adjusted basis, but you see the most

important divisions were not growing and that they relied on a lot of leasing. they could not get the right product mix. emily: president antonio neri will be taking over for her. we spoke to him a while back. i asked him about his name being touted as successor to meg whitman. take a listen to what he had to say. >> i have been in the company for 22 years. always in many different areas of the business. and i am very excited about the future of this company. emily: crawford is now with us. we were listening to antonio who will be succeeding meg whitman there. you also spoke with meg whitman herself. what did she have to say? >> obviously, we talked about the quarter and also her legacy. what she feels is that hewlett-packard is innovating in a way that they were not when

she arrived. i think if you look at the situation this company was in when she arrived, they were in a real haphazard situation with the exit. the playbook they are running now is a playbook where they can and do innovate. the problem is they still participate in a lot of relatively low margin segments. but i have got to tell you, this company was irrelevant, heading towards irrelevance, 3-4 years ago. the playbook of value-added areas of the infrastructure that they can add to their portfolio and sell through their channel is showing revenue growth. that revenue growth is something we have not seen for a number of quarters. now we see it in the second sequential quarter, so relatively -- we talked about it. the business is performing better than it has been in recent history.

separate from that, you have to look at how is the job done. i think that is the open question. emily: tell us who antonio neri is and what kind of leadership he is expected to bring to the company. >> i have had the pleasure of knowing antonio a long time over , 10 years. he is an hper, an hper pre-compaq merger. i met him within the personal systems group. he is the every-hper in the sense that he knows everyone and has climbed the corporate ladder and is extremely well-regarded in the company. meg made a comment when i spoke to her, when she joined, 60% of top managers were not from hewlett-packard. now that number is completely reversed. and here we have the c.e.o. having climbed the corporate ladder, so he is well regarded within hewlett-packard and is a

back to the roots of climb the corporate ladder and taking his lumps internally and knows the organization in a unique way. emily: coming up, consolidation in the chip industry continues. marvell rallies off its plan. all the details are next. plus, a race between alexa and siri. the apple homepod is supposed to compete with amazon's echo, but is it too little too late? this is bloomberg. ♪

♪ emily: in the battle of the voice activated assistants, apple may be losing out to amazon in more ways than one. the homepod is set to debut next year, more than three years after the launch of the amazon echo. but it is not just about timing. apple's device also lacks many of the capabilities that make

the echo a hit. >> apple comes out with something that leapfrogs competition, a breakthrough. we saw this with the ipad, iphone, and apple watch. we are seeing a product coming three years after amazon, but it totally misses the point in terms of what amazon is hitting at. they are going after a category that people aren't asking for. people want a cloud-based device like the echo that can do everything from ordering groceries, lunch and dinner, to making appointments and calling an uber or a lyft. what apple has brought to the table is a really great loudspeaker. something other companies have already established a footprint for. emily: when i spoke to tim cook in june, i ask if this it means apple is interested in getting into e-commerce. he said no. in fact, you should look at this as an audio device.

that is where they think they are adding value. take a listen to what tim cook told me. >> apple is a company that deeply cares about music and wants to deliver a great audio experience in the home. we feel like we reinvented it in the portable audio player, and we think we can reinvent it in the home as well. emily: is he right? there is a desire to reinvent the audio experience in the home, or is that not what customers want right now? >> let me take us through some history. in 2006, steve jobs unveiled a product called the ipod hi-fi, it was $350, and the pitch was to basically reinvent home audio and sound. that product did not fare too well. although this was 10 years ago, the product was a massive flop. it was discontinued less than two years after it came out. here is apple 10 years later

basically coming out with the same approach, a speaker that sounds better than the competition and integrates with apple's products better than the competition, but it is not a true leapfrog product, a true advance like the ipad, iphone, and apple watch were when they came out as the first devices in their respective categories. emily: what do customers want? is it e-commerce, and can we expect siri to offer any of these features? >> alexa and the echo have been a surprise hit. it does everything with your voice. you can control your home, your music. but the homepod will not be able to do much beyond that. coming tof e-commerce the homepod, one of the key differences is that the echo is the product. the homepod is an extension to the product, which is the iphone. there are thousands of apps available through the cloud,

where as the homepod relies on the iphone for third-party applications. it does not have its own ecosystem around it. the iphone apps that work with it are limited to text messaging through apps like wechat, facebook, and skype, but the other apps are note-taking apps, so it is a limited subset that will work with siri and the homepod. this thing has a processor that comes straight from an iphone, so it should be powerful and have these enhancements. remember, apple had all the tools to come out with a killer product like the echo. it has had itunes since the early 2000's. it was the first to mainstream voice activation since 2011. obviously apple has been the , king of the hardware industry in terms of making cool-looking well put together products for several decades. it should have been apple that came out with an echo-like device five years ago and not amazon.

emily: that was bloomberg's mark gurman. a lot of movement in chipmaking. marvell has agreed to buy cavium for about $6 billion. marvell specializes in chips that control hard disk drives, a market that is no longer growing. cavium makes network processors. meantime, qualcomm investors say they could be open to a broadcom deal but at a higher price. you will remember qualcomm's board rejected the $105 billion acquisition offer. bob o'donnell joins us again. >> step back and look at the big texture. we think the combination makes sense. it places adjacent parts of the cellphone together. the c.e.o. of broadcom might be able to settle disputes with apple, which has been the primary thorn in qualcomm's side.

if they are able to put that together, it adds a tremendous amount of value to qualcomm and hence to broadcom, if it were to be acquired. emily: what about the price on offer? >> in so far is it possible that hock tan offers $5 or $10 more to get the deal done? yes. from a deal perspective, he is pretty well leveraged to try to make the deal happen. at the end of the day, $80 a share people are angling for is a psychological high price of the last five years, and hock tan has historically not given into those higher-price demands usually. and it might be a barter whether video gets done at that price. emily: there has been a lot of consolidation in the check -- chip industry.

i want you to look at a chart. chart 5038 shows you how chip sales have been rising at their fastest pace since 2010 globally. and yet more consolidation than ever, fewer players. >> look, it is hard to compete out there if you are a small or specialized player. you are seeing a conglomeration of different technologies put together in these companies. intel is now competing on modems and all these other things. all of these companies recognize they have to have a combination of different components because across the board, whether it is phone, iot, all areas require multiple types of technologies, and that will be important. two things i will throw out there. number one, there is a concern from a monopolistic perspective around wi-fi and bluetooth. you have to figure out what they will do because there is too much control consolidated there. the other thing is culturally broadcom and qualcomm are

different types of companies, and there is a concern would that would have an impact on talent loss if this deal were to go through because there has been discussion about that. >> that's a great point i want to make. but unlike other consolidations, the difference is hock tan is in charge. emily: someone said to me hock gets what he wants. generally. >> he has a clear idea of what he wants and what segments he wants to keep, and more importantly, what segments he wants to divest. the wi-fi business is in overlap. we think it is roughly a $7 billion business that can be punted pretty quickly. the other part of this is from far left field, but at the same time, if they were able to put a motor on the licensing part of the business, could that be sold off? that could clear a whole host of

problems from a regulatory perspective. emily: how does the cavium-marvell deal fit in? >> that one seems pretty straightforward. there is a nice combination of technologies. again, two relatively smaller players coming together. there is this general idea of edge computing growing. there is this idea of cloud computing coming down to the edge, and this combination and cavium is talking about arm servers. and this combination would give them the capability to create interesting components for products on the edge. and i think that could be a big deal for them. >> interestingly enough, the main competitor to marvell and cavium is broadcom. emily: broadcom will be everyone's competitor at this point. what are the consequences of that? >> you have to be in semis. go big or go home. you cannot afford to be a small niche player and think you will

go somewhere. you have to have manufacturing capacity, product, and distribution channel, and you can't do that if you're a small company. >> the only thing i thought of when i was thinking about this is, what if samsung came in and said we want qualcomm, because samsung does raw components, screens, memory. they could do radios. i'm not saying anything like that will happen, but when you think about the ways this world could go, that would not be the strangest deal ever done. ♪ emily: that does it for this edition of the "best of bloomberg technology." we will bring you the latest in tech throughout the week. tune in each day. we will be focusing in on driverless technology and general motors unveiling its latest car with no steering wheel. you won't want to miss it. and remember, all episodes of "bloomberg technology" are live

streaming on twitter. check us out at @bloombergtechtv weekdays. that is all for now. this is bloomberg. ♪

carol: welcome to "bloomberg businessweek." i'm carol massar. julia: and i'm julia chatterley. this week trouble for justin , trudeau. companies catering ppers.parat onia: all that ahead "bloomberg businessweek." ♪ carol: we are with the editor in chief megan murphy. , we kick it off, taking a look at canada which i feel has largely esct